Mr. Speaker, this morning testifying before the committee, I had the opportunity to explain Canada's position very clearly.

It is based on negotiations between two parties to permit stability and peace between these two societies, these two sovereign states living side by side and on commitment to a peace process as well. That is the position of the Government of Canada. As I have already said, we condemn expanding settlement in East Jerusalem.

Mr. Speaker, first, the government sends letters to groups in rural communities telling them they are no longer getting funding for Internet access. Now we see the government flip-flopping. What is going on?

For many in rural and remote communities, the community access program is key for Canadians to access online resources for services, training and jobs.

Could the minister confirm that the full funding to the community access program will be maintained? Is the flip-flop due to the outrage of rural Canadians? If it is not a flip-flop, why did they get the letters in the first place?

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in the chamber today, the money was always in the budget and the money was always going to be allocated to the groups that had the money in the first place. Therefore, our position has not changed.

I am quite surprised the member cares so deeply about this issue since she voted against the budget in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know the Liberals slashed transfer payments to the provinces in order to resolve their structural deficit, which resulted in great upheaval in health care and the closure of the Armagh hospital in Bellechasse.

Happily, in its 2010 budget, our Conservative government is maintaining and increasing transfers to the provinces to maintain quality health care, education and social services across the country.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. As we know, the Liberals never acknowledged there was any fiscal imbalance. Who resolved it? The Conservative Government. In the 1990s, the Liberals cut transfers to Quebec. Who promised to never again balance Ottawa's budget on the back of Quebec? It was the Conservative government. In 2005-06, the Liberals transferred $12.5 billion to Quebec. Today, the transfers total $19.3 billion. Who increased the transfers to Quebec by $6.8 billion? The Conservative government.

When Premier Jean Charest said the 70% increase in transfers to Quebec over what they were under the Liberals was good news--

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is at it again. Not only must Environment Canada scientists get government approval for their answers before an interview, they must also write a report on the interview after. This is censorship reminiscent of the censorship on science practised in dictatorships. It flies in the face of Canadian values of freedom.

Why is the Prime Minister having his spin doctors muzzle the government's own environmental scientists? Why is the government extending its crude command and control ideology to honest and free scientific inquiry aimed at making the world a better place for future generations?

Mr. Speaker, the government supports the scientists we have at Environment Canada and other departments as well.

As I pointed out to my colleague earlier, these allegations go back to 2007 and 2008. I have been the minister for over a year and a half. I have not had any difficulties in the department with our scientists, relative to media inquiries. These are the same rules that apply to all other government departments.

Why does the hon. member not focus on some of the investments that the government has announced in the budget relative to northern meteorological navigational services, for example, the RADARSAT Constellation, all of this great scientific work that this government supports.

Mr. Speaker, community Internet access centres are the foundation of an immense network that allows hundreds of thousands of people to use new technology. By cutting the community access program, the Conservatives are jeopardizing the survival of these centres and, as a direct result, they will be denying Internet access to those most underprivileged and to rural communities.

Does the government understand that it needs to maintain the community access program in order to prevent this exclusion?

Mr. Speaker, as we have already indicated, we announced in the budget that we will provide funding for this Internet access program through grants. We support Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, who need Internet access and our program.

We have another program, the broadband program, with $200 million for rural and remote Canadians, for access as well.

We are on the side of Canadians who choose to live in rural and remote communities.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders today, the divisions in relation to the business of supply be taken in the following order: the question to dispose of the opposition motion in the name of the member for Malpeque, followed by the question to dispose of the opposition motion in the name of the member for Joliette.